A million pages of rebuttal to the inanities of Curtis and McLean do not add up to a single change to the decision of the Court.
If you can document some part of the Decision of the Court that changed, quote the original and quote the change.
AND YOU HAVE STILL NOT PROVIDED YOUR BRILLIANT LEGAL THEORY TO FREE DRED SCOTT.
All you do is yammer about changes you have never seen and are unable to produce.
I see where you are going with your rationale. You do not consider additions, rebuttal, and the introduction of new lines of argument to be "changes."
"If you can document some part of the Decision of the Court that changed, quote the original and quote the change."
"When [Justice Curtis] finally acquired a copy of Taney's published opinion, Curtis compared it with his recollection of the oral version, which he had heard twice - first in conference and then again on March 6. He concluded that 'upwards of eighteen pages' had been added. 'No one can read them,' he declared, 'without perceiving that they are in reply to my [dissenting] opinion.' Thus Curtis maintained the about one-third of the published opinion was new material introduced as rebuttal, whereas Taney insisted emphatically that he made no significant changes or additions. Which man's reckoning is more trustworthy? How much did Taney change his opinion after delivering it from the bench? For the most part, historians merely recorded the disagreement, without attempting to settle it.
"Unfortunately, the opinion that Taney read from the bench was not preserved, and the newspaper summary is inadequate for systematic comparison with the published version. There are, nevertheless, some indications to the extent to which [Taney] revised the original document."
Professor Fehrenbacher (Dred Scott Case) notes that both Curtis and McLean were surprised that the decision was not immediately published, as was the normal practice. As I noted in an earlier post on this thread, they were aware of the rumors that were speading, to the effect, that Taney was revising the decision.
A great deal of Taney's papers have been preserved, and a book you have (Swisher's biography) references some of his private papers. Even Fehrenbacher makes light of scraps of notes, draft opinions, incomplete manuscripts, etc., that Taney had saved. Don't you find it strange that Taney's text he read from the Bench did not survive? What do you think Taney might have done with that historic document? I think the answer is obvious - he destroyed the evidence of his duplicity.